Link21 lives

[winxpi]

Even Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME.

@Link21

Sorry but I didn't get that what does POS stand for?

Does it mean "Popular Operating Systems

Edited June 19, 2006 by winxpi

[wizardofwindows]

yes i believe it does.truly a wonderful os that is loved by millions i hear bill gates plays doom on it all the time. Edited June 19, 2006 by timeless

[Link21]

Even Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME.

@Link21

Sorry but I didn't get that what does POS stand for?

Does it mean "Popular Operating Systems

NO of course NOT.

POS stands for PIECE OF SH*T!!

[RainyShadow]

LOL, Link, just look at the link i provided earlier in this thread. Should give you something to think about.

[Link21]

LOL, Link, just look at the link i provided earlier in this thread. Should give you something to think about.

It does not. That link is full of sh*t. The information contained is not all correct. The activation in Windows XP does suck, but use Windows 2000 if you hate Windows XP activation. At least Windows 2000 is a good quality OS because it is based on a real 32-bit kernel and not some POS 640KB memory limited 16-bit DOS arhitecture that has to rely on extendfers just to even use more than 640KB of memory because it is not natively supported by that ancient turd of an OS. Linux, Windows NT flavors, Unix variants, and all other 32-bit operating systems released since 1994 natively support 4GB of RAM without relying on extenders.

ANd that is nonsense about Windows 98 not having open ports. As a matter of fact, all versions of Windows prior to Windows XP SP2 have all the ports open by default because you know what, none of them come with a firewall built into the OS kernel. With a third party firewall, you can stealth all ports in any version of Windows. But without any third party firewall, every version of Windows prior to XP SP2 has all ports open.

Or best of yet, use Linux. Linux is far better than anything MS ever created. But if you are going to use an OS made by MS, at least use something halfway decent like a Windows NT based OS. Don't use the worst OS arhitecture released since 1994 in the crap that Win95/98/ME was and still is.

Almost every OS ever released since 1994 is far better than the piece of junk that Win95/98/ME was and still is.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Link21

[stickzilla]

This is quite the dedication to trolling.

[Fredledingue]

Link21,

A firewall become an obligation with XP because of its legendary security holes.

You think an OS is "good quality" as soon as it has an NT-based kernel or whatever else NT-based. It may be better, but in the case of XP, using NT kernel and architecture was not enough. Too many things made it the worse OS ever.

Stable, yes, but at the price of so many other disadvantages that I even don't want to use it.

Ironicaly a hacker has more control over your XP computer than you will ever have.

It's very difficult to control and modify what's happening under the hood of XP. Just take a look at the list of the services and you see stuffs like this:

service = "XYZM data flow control agent"

So you click on "description" to see what it's doing and if you can disable it. The description is something like:

"The XYZM data flow control agent is a service that control flow of XYZM datas. Application that requires XYZM flow control agent may not work properly if you disable this service."

But the guy who is in the business, knows what he can do with it and manipulate your computer out of a security flaw in this service, while you even don't know if you can disable it and often you can't.

"Services", is concept by which other poeple (virtual ro real ones) are managing your computer for you. XP services are virtual operators that control what the computer is doing without interracting with you most of the time. These service can be controled be a remote network administrator or a hacker or a virus.

By contrast on w98++, it's the one who hold the keyboard that control the machine.

As for programming, it's nearly impossible to exploit the specificities of an OS to make running apps faster.

What the programmer you talked with means is that using pre-build XP libraries is more efficient on XP than using only 98-95 ones (on XP).

But the best programmers will rely as less as possible on pre-build functions, and creates codes that does exactely what the application is supposed to do, and therefor create a cross system compatible software. Y! messenger is an example.

I mean to get the same effect on the monitor screen, every program on any OS version will always send a certain amount of operations to do to the processor and a certain amount of binary datas to this processor.

The skill of a programmer is to avoid useless flow of data and useless operations.

You can do it sucessfuly on XP as well as on w98 as well as on Linux or MacOs.

Link21, you should know that "stability" or "NT based kernel" doesn't mean "quality OS". There are other things to take in account.

And stop saying that if we don't like XP, let's take 2000. It's like saying, if you don't like w98, use w95.

No, the only chance is reactOS or alternatives like that.

[Jeremy]

Can everyone just... stop making this thread active? People have different views, it's our egos that drive us to respond once more and shove our opinion down the throats of others and hope newcomers adopt it as their own, etc. If you don't use the Internet and use only Word, music, video, then use an aged OS. If you're a security freak with an 80 GB HD, use nLited XP SP2. if you have absolutely no alternative, use ME. Link21 is boring? Anyone who replies to this topic is boring, myself included. lol

[Fredledingue]

If the XP vs. w98 debate is so boring and irrelevant, why is it always making the most active ttreads? Why is this debate so popular then?

After 50 pages of replies (last thread on this topic had 50+ pages before it was locked down), and the continous re-appearence of such topic, you may ask yourself whether some msfn members have in interrest into this discussion and why.

Not that I always want to put my 2 cents, but the XP vs. W98 cinfrontation alone is enough to fill a forum.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Fredledingue

[RJARRRPCGP]

at the link i provided earlier in this thread. Should give you something to think about.

It does not. That link is full of sh*t. The information contained is not all correct. The activation in Windows XP does suck, but use Windows 2000 if you hate Windows XP activation. At least Windows 2000 is a good quality OS because it is based on a real 32-bit kernel and not some POS 640KB memory limited 16-bit DOS arhitecture that has to rely on extendfers just to even use more than 640KB of memory because it is not natively supported by that ancient turd of an OS.

I don't like to tell you this, even Windows 98 has made a good improvement. Even Windows 98 is better than Windows 95. That's my favorite version when Windows 2000 and later hassle me. Even Windows 2000 can be real picky!

No DRM bull forced on people in Windows 98.

If even Windows 2000 has hassled me, (but I'm starting to get the kinks worked out) I can only imagine what Vista would be like, there's a majorly high chance of it breaking compatibility, because of the anti-kernel patch protection. Everybody may be required to rewrite their software! It's appearing that there's going to be a Linux boom!

What Microsoft did likely is coming back to bite them.

Edited June 19, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP

[Link21]

Link21,

A firewall become an obligation with XP because of its legendary security holes.

You think an OS is "good quality" as soon as it has an NT-based kernel or whatever else NT-based. It may be better, but in the case of XP, using NT kernel and architecture was not enough. Too many things made it the worse OS ever.

Stable, yes, but at the price of so many other disadvantages that I even don't want to use it.

Ironicaly a hacker has more control over your XP computer than you will ever have.

It's very difficult to control and modify what's happening under the hood of XP. Just take a look at the list of the services and you see stuffs like this:

service = "XYZM data flow control agent"

So you click on "description" to see what it's doing and if you can disable it. The description is something like:

"The XYZM data flow control agent is a service that control flow of XYZM datas. Application that requires XYZM flow control agent may not work properly if you disable this service."

But the guy who is in the business, knows what he can do with it and manipulate your computer out of a security flaw in this service, while you even don't know if you can disable it and often you can't.

"Services", is concept by which other poeple (virtual ro real ones) are managing your computer for you. XP services are virtual operators that control what the computer is doing without interracting with you most of the time. These service can be controled be a remote network administrator or a hacker or a virus.

By contrast on w98++, it's the one who hold the keyboard that control the machine.

As for programming, it's nearly impossible to exploit the specificities of an OS to make running apps faster.

What the programmer you talked with means is that using pre-build XP libraries is more efficient on XP than using only 98-95 ones (on XP).

But the best programmers will rely as less as possible on pre-build functions, and creates codes that does exactely what the application is supposed to do, and therefor create a cross system compatible software. Y! messenger is an example.

I mean to get the same effect on the monitor screen, every program on any OS version will always send a certain amount of operations to do to the processor and a certain amount of binary datas to this processor.

The skill of a programmer is to avoid useless flow of data and useless operations.

You can do it sucessfuly on XP as well as on w98 as well as on Linux or MacOs.

Link21, you should know that "stability" or "NT based kernel" doesn't mean "quality OS". There are other things to take in account.

And stop saying that if we don't like XP, let's take 2000. It's like saying, if you don't like w98, use w95.

No, the only chance is reactOS or alternatives like that.

If you really think WIndows XP is the worst OS ever made and that being based on the NT kernel wasn't enough to save it, then what do you think of the other NT based operating systems?

Do you consider Windows 2000 and Windows XP as one and the same if you claim you don't like XP and you keep saying Xp only applictaions, when what I mean is Windows 2000/XP only applications. And also because you say that saying to use Windows 2000 if you don't XP is the same thing as saying use Windows 95 if you don't like Windows 98?

What I'm saying is that for everyone who hates Windows XP, WIndows 2000 is a great alternative. The reason why there is so much hate for Windows XP is because of the intrusive BS forced upon by Microsoft. Windows 2K does not have the invasive BS forced upon you MS and it is easier to get rid of IE and still have a fully usable system in 2K. WIth Windows XP if you strip out lots of the security holes like IE, you will practically break almost all functionality. With Windows 2K, it is very possible to run a lean version without breaking nearly as much functionality.

An OS can be of fine quality if it is based on the NT kernel. It cannot be if it is based on a craptacular architecture like the 9X kernel, no matter how stable anyone of you claim you can het it to run.

The Linux kernel, Unix variants, VMS, Mach, OS/2, in addition to NT are all good quality OS kernels. The Windows 9X kernel is NOT.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Link21

[EchoNoise]

LMFAO... this is such a big feed bag for a troller like Link21 (i know your reading this)...

How about closing this thread?

Oh and btw... W98 is the bestest

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I think this is a good thread but can get annoying at times

but it also give viewers constructive feedback and input/specs on OS

just readin this thread i learn a lil more about Win98SE which is the

BEST

[Jlo555]

I see no point in locking this thread, because in two months, someone will create another one. We should just have a separate forum in MSFN dedicated to the 98 vs. XP war, which has been going for.... what like four years now. On a somewhat related topic, I'm pretty sure Link21 just has a Word template with all of his 98 vs XP arguments, because his posts are nearly the same on AnandTech and MSFN. I don't think there's ever gonna be an end to the argument, because everyone has their own opinion and we won't stop until we've cemented our opinions into the minds of each individual on the forum. Actually, that's already been done so I guess the threads just won't stop!

I am not going to diss Windows 98SE because I am a loyal user myself. But the only reason for the amount of popularity within an operating system is how it is marketed. After windows 95, everyone knew that the DOS based OS was a load of crap, but people bought Windows 98 because it was so widely known after Microsoft shoved their "ideas" and products down our throats. It was about three times worse for XP, the first OS to actually have television commercials for it. The stats on the TheCounter.com speak for themselves. Why do you think Linux is still at 0% usage compared to other OS's. Apple had their chance, but Jobs and Wozniak were too stupid to act on it. Open Source operating systems still have a chance but their "policies" have limited them to where they are now. To summarize it, you can sell a piece of crap, just as long as you market it correctly. And Windows NT was never really marketed that widely except as a business OS.

But I've really gotten to liking 98SE nowadays. Sometimes I think that it IS time to upgrade to a new OS, so I slap on XP Pro, I see how bloated it is, I trim it down, I get a WGA message stating that I am a criminal, I ignore it. Then I think back to the good old days of simplicity and DOS, so I reformat, put in the old 98se cd and continue where I left off.

@Link21, you keep asking me why I use a 16-bit POS. Because I FEEL like it... why do I smoke cigarettes? Why do I eat fastfood? Why do I breathe? Why the hell am I still alive?

Edited June 20, 2006 by Jlo555

[Thunderbolt 2864]

If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.